Wednesday, 15 January 2014

TweetSome of what
Cameron said this week on fracking is surely indisputable.It would undoubtedly create jobs, it would
undoubtedly lead to major capital investment, and it would undoubtedly increase
UK energy security.

His claim about
lower energy bills is rather less certain, and has already been disputed by
some of those involved in the industry. I don't
doubt his sincerity in claiming that steps will be taken to try and ensure minimal direct
environmental damage - although the extent to which any of us can be certain
that there will not be damage is another question entirely.He may turn out to be right, but I don’t currently
share his apparent supreme confidence.

However, all of
that is about the pros and cons at a practical and economic level; the point he
did not make was that an all-out commitment to fracking commits us, effectively,
to another century of dependence on fossil fuels.Gas may be the cleanest (although I prefer
the term “least dirty”) of the fossil fuels, but it is still a fossil fuel, and
it still produces greenhouse gases.

We should also
be concerned about the financial deal suggested this week, in which councils in
England will get to keep the whole of the business rates from any fracking site
(the Welsh Government has yet to decide whether to follow suit). I can’t argue against the principle that local
communities should gain from any such developments if they do go ahead – after all,
I have argued in the past that the same should be true for windfarms.But tying those benefits into the planning
process is another matter entirely.

Some have
already called it a “bribe”, and giving local authorities a direct financial
incentive to grant planning consent certainly seems to be flying in the face of
the (allegedly) quasi-judicial planning process.

For decades,
local councillors have been told that they must set aside any personal views
about developments, avoid taking any view prior to hearing the report of the
planning officers, and then judge planning applications purely on their merits
as compared with agreed planning policies, almost as though they were in a
court of law.So – is it actually legal
to offer local authorities a direct financial incentive to grant planning consent
for a development which they would otherwise refuse?I’m sure that it would not be if I tried it.